Does everyone recall this magic multicultural moment at the Liberal leadership convention?
Sources close to Rae say that his wife, Arlene Perly Rae, was approached during last weekend’s convention by a delegate who didn’t realize she was the candidate’s wife. The delegate told her not to vote for Rae “because his wife is Jewish.”
Perly Rae stonily informed the delegate that she was the wife in question. The delegate beat a hasty retreat.
The incident might have been shrugged off if it had been an isolated event. But Rae team insiders contend it was part of a larger pattern of anti-Semitic smears on Rae, who finished third.
A flyer was circulated electronically among convention delegates denouncing Rae for having once delivered a speech to the Jewish National Fund, a group the flyer said was complicit in “war crimes and ethnic cleansing.”
[…]
The Canadian Jewish Congress has condemned the flyer and blamed Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation for circulating it. The federation has, in turn, accused the CJC of making “a pitiful attempt to discredit” it and has denied producing or distributing the flyer.
Jan 24, 2008 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Canada’s outright rejection of the [UN anti-racism] conference sends a clear message to the Canadian public that the current government is disinterested in promoting human rights and anti-racism. The very fact that Israel was “attacked” at the previous conference indicates that the international community and human rights organizations are in agreement that the occupation of Arab lands, the mistreatment and killing of Palestinians, and the denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return is in violation of international law and will be condemned and no longer accepted.
[…]
“We would also like to remind Jason Kenney that he is a Minister of the Canadian government, not the racist Israeli government; still, CAF is not surprised with Minister Kenney’s position given his outright contempt for the Arab and Muslim communities in Canada and his condoning of Islamophobia. This is the same man who attacked a Muslim organization for lodging a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Maclean’s Magazine for publishing an inflammatory and bigoted article, and who slandered Canadian NGO’s at an OSCE Conference in front of the international community”, said Khaled Mouammar, CAF National President.
Update – Khaled Mouammar gets around!
I disagree, irwin daisy, with your conclusion that Islamic violence is directly linked to the Islamic texts.
I’ve always maintained that Islam is essentially a social and political system that emerged as a militant reaction to Byzantine enroachment on their pastoral lands – and that its definition as a religion was merely to insert Ultimate Authority to prevent further assimilation of those peoples and their economy.
But you are ignoring that these texts are themselves debated as to ‘correct interpretation’ by Muslim scholars, for not all Muslims want to spend their lifetime as warriors. You ignore the complexities and diversity of Islam.
Also, I maintain that Islamic fascism is not directly related to the texts; Islamic fascism uses those texts as a cover, but the real cause of fascism is economic and political tribalism in the ME and the ME’s refusal to move into a civic economic and political mode.
Canadian Sentinel – Are you in favour of the Human Rights Act and Commission? I’m not, and I don’t see how or why you can outlaw fascism as a mode of thought. McCarthy tried to outlaw communism. Would you set up the same type of system here?
Well then I suppose, ET, you disagree with Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Andrew Bostom and a host of other far more knowledgeable people than yourself.
Fundamentalist Islamic fascism is demonstrated throughout history. It is not simply a recent ideologically unattached, ‘grievance based’ phenomenon as you assert.
All of these people, including myself, have presented mountains of evidence to support this fact. As for your opinion?
ET, no, I’m not in favor of the HRC at all. I, too, want it abolished as it’s not about rights at all and is actually about taking them away.
I’m using irony and sarcasm in my previous comment.
Of course you can tell?
To promote hauling Islamofascists, for example, before the HRC is to highlight the reality that it isn’t happening, despite the reality that they’re violating the HRA and ought to be deemed, like actual HRC victims, as being “hateful” and intimidated into stopping their hateful Islamosupremacist/imperialist speeches, all of them.
It’s about fighting fire with fire.
I’m a sarcastic guy sometimes, see?
Point: Take all groups before the HRC for being asshats, or abolish it as it only persecutes some groups but not others, even when the “others” are being hateful and even inciteful.
Umberto Eco, on Islamic fascism. Notice that he uses ‘Ur-Fascism’ to describe it as eternal (in other words, not a recent grievance based phenomenon):
Umberto Eco: [2] “Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism …The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense [Eternal fascism] can be defined as irrationalism.”
Umberto Eco: [3] “Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake …. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been symptom of Ur- [or Eternal Fascism ].”
Umberto Eco: [4] ” No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism), disagreement is is treason.”
Umberto Eco: [5] “Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-fascism (or Eternal Fascism) grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist movement is an appeal against intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism) is racist by definition.”
irwin daisy – no, I don’t assert that Islamic fascism is a ” recent ideologically unattached, ‘grievance based’ phenomenon.”
It is nothing of the kind and I never said it was. It is NOT ideologically unattached; it is, in itself, an ideology. And it is most certainly NOT ‘grievance based’.
It is most certainly recent, ie, post WWI and II, emerging in the ME states confronted with industrialism as an economic mode but still operating in a non-industrial political mode, tribalism. I’ve explained this all before and I’m not repeating it.
I’ve also outlined enough times my view of the emergence and development of Islam as a militant reaction to an expanding Byzantine agriculturalism.
That doesn’t mean that Islam was, right from the start, fascist. I disagree with such a conclusion. Fascism is a utopian ideology that defines itself with reference to an historic essentialism; Hegel is understood as a major figure in its axioms.
I frankly don’t think that you understand the intimate relation between social structures, the environment and demography, the economy and the political system. You instead focus your attention on the text, and ignore both the social infrastructure and the many diverse interpretations of those texts.
As for Umberto Eco, much as I like him personally (and he’s a marvellous,extremely learned and funny raconteur and guest), I don’t agree with either his semiotics or his sociocultural views. As for his outline of fascism, there’s nothing new or different about it, though he emphasizes its mythic and mystical essentialism and leaves out its historic identity.
Fascism is a view that posits that the identity of a people is essentialist (ie, eternal). However, the emergence of a fascist political movement, which posits essentialism – can come at any time.
This essentialism is not subject to debate or reason; it is a facet of nature; it is ‘natural’.
Umberto’s comments are basic but incomplete outlines of fascism. I think that less mythic outlines of fascism can be found in Roger Eatwell ‘Fascism: A History’. There’s also the famous very short Mussolini-Gentile What is Fascism. As for the emergence and rise of Islamic Fascism, I like Wright’s The Looming Tower’s analysis of Al Qaeda.
Sorry, canadian sentinel – I didn’t get your sarcasm. My apologies; I agree with your view of the HRC.
No problem, ET. I’ve had trouble detecting sarcasm, too… that’s the problem with not being able to see one’s face when one’s communicating, or hear one’s tone (I rely on faces for sarcasm detection; can’t hear a thing anyway).
ET, you might enlighten your opinion with a couple of essays.
“Islam, Middle East and Fascism” by Ibn Warraq.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766
And Dr. Andrew Bostom, ‘Islam, Nazism, and Totalitarianism.’
andrewbostom.org/blog
The three predominant western views on Islam:
(Carol Iannone is editor-at-large for Academic Questions – National Association of Scholars and writes on literature and culture.)
“I’ve been reading Stephen Coughlin’s master’s thesis, “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad,” submitted to the National Defense Intelligence College, and I can see why it got him into trouble. He frankly declares that this administration has been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadism and terrorism.”
While members of the administration sternly warn of the dire threats we face and how we must know our enemy, they themselves are lost in illusions about that enemy. The enemy is not Islamo-Fascism, but the jihadist elements of Islam itself.
“Coughlin points out that on the basis of very little, Bush, Rice, and other Administration people blithely declare Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few violent extremists for their own agenda, an agenda which they insist has nothing to do with Islam. They ignore all the evidence from Islamic sources that support violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith and bypass the professed and frequently stated aims of the jihadists.”
“Coughlin’s thesis suggests that there are not two schools of thought on Islamic terror, those who think it is simply a criminal problem and those who think it is a war we will be fighting for a long time, but three:”
“First, there is the view that largely comes from the liberal-left, that thinks there really is no Islamic threat, that it’s really America and its actions that have called forth violence from Muslims, that if there is violence, it is from a tiny few and can be managed by the world community like an international criminal problem.”
“Then there is the conservative-right view, that there is indeed a terrible threat, a virtual World War Four, and the threat is from Islamo-Fascism, not from Islam itself, but from the aberrations of radicals who are creating some distorted blending of Islamic beliefs with 20th century fascist concepts. This is only a recent development, according to this view, not centuries old, and therefore we can be very hopeful about stomping it out. About ten percent of the world’s Muslims do believe in Islamo-Fascist jihad, and that is a serious number, but ninety percent of Muslims don’t believe in it and want what we all want, material security and prosperity. In fact, the underlying causes of terrorism arise from the material deprivation and lack of freedom and opportunity in the Muslim world. There is thus no conflict between Islam and liberal democracy and modernity in general, and certainly no clash of civilizations. The Islamic world will not be able to resist the march of liberal democracy and the irresistible call of freedom. This view is largely that of President Bush.”
(This also seems to be the opinion of many posters here, including ET)
“The third view says that there is indeed a problem with Islam itself, that even if only a minority of Muslims will ever take up jihad, most Muslims know that that is mandated by their religion and they do support it in belief and sometimes financially. The term Islamo-Fascism is really a euphemism for those who wish to deny or ignore the violence inherent in Islam. This view sees that jihad has been a feature of Islam from its beginnings and that martyrdom is honored and rewarded in Islam. This view also finds that Islam may well be in conflict with liberal democracy. Muslims are told that they are meant to Islamicize the countries they live in, through “peaceful” means if they can, and violent means when necessary, and we already see signs of this in Europe and America.”
(This being my view, shared by most who have studied the Islamic trilogy and it’s relation to violence throughout history)
“So, to return more strictly to Coughlin’s thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.”
Robert Spencer comments:
“I have always held, of course, to the third view, and have argued for it here and in my books. This view is abundantly borne out by Islamic texts and teachings, as well as by statements from numerous contemporary Muslims, but it is nonetheless completely ruled out of consideration a priori by a mainstream media dominated by the first view and a conservative media establishment dominated by the second. However, the truth will out, one way or the other, and cannot be ignored and denied forever.”
“So, to return more strictly to Coughlin’s thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.”
“Precisely.”
No, irwin daisy, I don’t agree with these three perspectives. I think it’s more complex.
Certainly, the first view is, in my opinion, dangerous nonsense.
But, the second view’s focus on Islamic fascism is, I feel, for the most part, correct. It is correct to consider that fascism is recent and due to the economic and political situations in the ME – particularly, as I’ve outlined, the conflict between a tribal infrastructure and the requirement of an industrial economy and large population for democracy.
However, I disagree that there is NO conflict between Islam and liberal democracy. Islam, as I’ve said umpteen times before, emerged as a militant response in the 7th c. to the encroachment of its land base by Byzantine agricultural settlements.
Islam is primarily a social and political mode rather than a religion. It says little about the metaphysical, the realm of religion and what is says is based entirely on the other religions of the time (Judaism and Christianity). Therefore, as a social and political mode – operating in tribalism – it IS in total conflict with a modern civic mode.
The question then becomes – can this mode be changed? I say – yes. [You say – no?]
I completely disagree with Coughlin and Spencer, because their focus is purely and only on the ideology, on the texts (ignoring as well, the work of differences in interpretation of the texts).
I totally disagree with analyzing societal actions as mimetic copies of texts. The reason for this, is that a society, in my view, is not a product of a text, of words, of an ideology, but rests on its feet, so to speak. And the feet are not in words but in matter – in the economy and in the population= both of which are ignored by Coughlin and Spencer.
An industrial economy only operates with a large population. And, an industrial economy cannot operate within the linear hereditary connections of tribalism but can only operate within the non-linear non-hereditary networks of a civic society. Equally, a population that is in the multimillions cannot operate within the linear networks of tribalism; it must move into the non-linear interactions of a civic society – and in particular – within a middle class.
None of this is part of the analysis of these two. But, I consider these variables vital in any analysis of Islamic fascism.
So, I completely disagree with any analysis (of any society) that focuses solely on the textual rhetoric – and ignores the population demographics and the economic and political modes.
Therefore, in my view, Islamic fascism is a recent development (19th c and on), due to the conflict between the tribal and civic modes of economic and political organization. I, however, think that Muslims WILL change their ideology so that they can develop a middle class (which means democracy). Actually, they will first develop the economy and middle class; the ideology will slip into its change..after. Check out what is happening in Dubai, for example.
Coughlin, Spencer and Bostom are scholars on Islam and its history. I think they might have a little more knowledge than you ET. Regardless, you can disagree with them. Many people do and are proven wrong over and over.
Ibn Warraq states:
“The treatment of the Jews by Muhammad is certainly not above reproach. The cold-blooded extermination of the Banu Qurayza ( between 600 and 900 men ), the expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre (something often overlooked in the history books) are not signs of magnanimity or compassion. His treatment of the Jews of the oasis of Khaybar served “as a model for the treaties granted by the Arab conquerors to the conquered peoples in territories beyond Arabia.” Muhammad attacked the oasis in 628, had one of the leaders tortured to find the hidden treasures of the tribe, and then when the Jews surrendered, agreed to let them continue cultivating their oasis only if they gave him half their produce. Muhammad also reserved the right to cancel the treaty and expel the Jews whenever he liked. This treaty or agreement was called a DHIMMA, and those who accepted it were known as DHIMMIS. All non-Muslims who accepted Muslim supremacy and agreed to pay a tribute, in return for ” Muslim protection,” are referred to as dhimmis.”
“The second caliph Umar later expelled the Jews and the Christians from the Hijaz (containing the holy cities of Mecca and Medina) in 640, referring to the dhimma of Khaybar. He is said to have quoted the Prophet on the right to cancel any pact he wished, and the Prophet’s famous saying: ” Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs.” To this day, the establishment of any other religion in Saudi Arabia is forbidden, many Christians have been executed for simply practising their religion. Here is how Amnesty International describes the situation in Saudi Arabia :”
“Hundreds of Christians, including women and children have been arrested and detained over the past three years, most without charge or trial, solely for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. Scores have been tortured, some by flogging, while in detention….The possession of non-Islamic religious objects – including Bibles, rosary beads, crosses and pictures of Jesus Christ – is prohibited and such items may be confiscated” (AINO 62 ; July /August 1993).
This is only one example proving Umar’s and later Saudi Arabia’s actions are justified and directly attributable to the actions and sayings of Mohammad found in the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
Same goes for institutionalized anti-semetic racism, the treatment of women, imperialism, supremacism, unbridled violence against non-Muslims, etc., etc., etc.
Furthermore, I agree with the ‘Muslims against Shariah’ at reformislam.org and M. Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. I wish there were more Muslims like them.
yes, irwin daisy, but there are scholars who disagree with them. Don’t fall into the “Appeal to Authority’ tactic.
Obviously, I stand by my view; I’m not alone in this analysis of Islamic fascism as a recent emergence, or the economic nature of social infrastructure and its dynamics.
Yes, I like those websites as well; they show that the ideology can be cracked open, and that Muslims can change it – and enter the modern world.
I’m sure you also know of Salim Mansur in Canada, and Irshad Manji – and the women’s groups and others, who campaigned against Sharia in Ontario.
It’s a hard fight – and it’s indeed a fight, but, I think that Islamism can be reformed and modernized. Indeed, what choice do they have?
Hmmm. ET, might I suggest you debate Robert Spencer on the points above?
Bet you’d like that. So would he.
Besides, he’s the expert; are you an expert? Perhaps you should listen to him a bit more, and view the proofs he provides wrt the M.E.
Far as I know, no one has been able to demonstrate that he’s wrong about anything relating to Islam and the M.E.
You would be the first, probably, if you could successfully prove him wrong about something relating to Islam.
Just a suggestion. I make it as you do appear to hold your positions wrt Islam and the M.E. very strongly.
And Mr. Spencer does appreciate a civil, frank debate, I understand, as do you.
Beyond that, ET, it’s important that we discuss Islamofascism, supremacism and imperialism openly.
We, after all, don’t want to be Islamicized. We know what that means. Want to wear a burqha? I wouldn’t want to be forbidden to shake hands with you just ’cause of the gender differences and what the Koran says wrt them.
I think, Canadian Sentinel, that you are, again, being sarcastic.
Robert Spencer has only an MA in religious studies. I won’t say that is causal, but it helps to explain his focus only on the texts as causal of behaviour. I disagree with such an ahistorical approach. That’s known, in anthropology, as a ‘symbolic’ or cultural approach, where you define a people by their texts, artifacts or oral explanations. I consider that a Descriptive approach. It describes WHAT is going on. But it’s not an analytic approach, which must explore WHY things are happening.
I subscribe to a, may I say, deeper societal analysis – which is that what a people say and think and write, is rooted in less-articulated behaviour. And that is – the economy, which is itself related to the realities of the ecological land base and the population demographics. This infrastructure ‘guides’ the verbal ideological beliefs.
The Spencer, Coughlin school, in my view, operates in a functional vacuum, focusing only on the texts and ignoring the ecological and economic infrastructure in which those texts both developed and are maintained.
I’ve outlined it many times before, my analysis of the emergence of Islam as a militant reactive sociopolitical tactic against Byzantine agricultural expansion (see P. Crone). Islamic fascism is, in my view, a 19th c phenomenon (see L. Wright’s analysis of Al Qaeda).
With the ME economies operating as tribal (hmm, there’s lots of stuff on the nature of tribalism; try oldies such as Levi-Strauss..I’d even suggest my own books and their references but heck, I don’t do that..). The incompatibility of tribalism and the civic mode – you can find stuff on that in many political theories..
So, I don’t locate causality within the text or the verbal artifact. A society is actually not a mental state but a physical entity and you have to look at the physical realities. Tribalism is incompatible with industrialism; Islamic ideology is tribal; the ME political regimes are tribal. And it has to, and can change.
Cheers. Sarcasm off.
So it’s about approach, then.
Understood. You and Spencer have different approaches to understanding and explaining Islam and related matters.
Nothing wrong with that.
It’s indeed something not only worthy of examination/understanding, but it’s also critically important to look at, for sure, and look at objectively, right?
Can we agree that there is, indeed, a serious, growing threat to civilization from radical Islam, to put it in a nutshell?
BTW, ET, that was sarcasm-free.
canadian sentinel – Yes, we certainly do agree that there is a serious threat to civilization, ie, the civic democracy, from radical Islam.
That’s why I was and am, for the Iraq war and the continuance of assistance in that area to enable Iraq to be a democracy. Same with Afghanistan.
I also advocate the continual devt of economic ties with these countries, to, economically, from the bottom up, force them into connections with other peoples and force them to open up their societies to enable their people to modernize.
That’s why I advocate continuous confrontation of Islamism, Sharia Law, the lack of democracy etc in the Arab States by the media, by bloggers, by governments. They must constantly be confronted with their tribalism, their rejection of equality, their repression of women, etc.
And why I advocate the rejection of multiculturalism in the West, the rejection of cultural relativism, of ‘tolerance’ for Islamism, for Sharia law, etc. And we reject any demands by ‘them’ that we reject or change our values.
And why I advocate the continuous debate and critique of Islamism. Islam has to be confronted, questioned, debated. It may say that it rejects reason and questions – but that’s their problem. We don’t.
That means that we in the West stand firm on our right to freedom of speech. That means the rejection of censorship, of the Canadian Human Rights (sic) Commissions and its evil Section 13.1.
For the record if you contact the media release person named in the above press release, be prepared to be spammned with vile and racist grime.
I’ve gotten about 30 in two days from this little jerk off. He’s a rogers.com subscriber and is spamming under many different names and email addies, claiming he’s a Muslim, then a Christian, then a Jew, then who every…
Meanwhile he’s just a scum sucking low life spreading his hate and lies!
LOL I just filter ’em out!
ET, it makes sense, what you’ve said.
Perhaps Mr. Spencer deliberately keeps his approach relatively narrowly focussed upon what, precisely, Islam says, and is and isn’t, as he may do what he does with a view to countering the lies of the Islamic propagandists/Taqiyyists with the plain, black-and-white truth and informing the wanna-knows who realize that there’s a lot of misinformation out there re. Islam, including in the MSM.
It makes perfect sense to take the more comprehensive approach to examination and understanding of Islam. Without the comprehensive approach, it’ll logically be difficult to confront, combat and curtail the Islamofascist monster which keeps growing and growing and getting around, visiting more and more places in the world with the intent to wreak havoc and mark everything and everyone as its territory.